In his final section, Mr. Smoot alleges various procedural anomalies with
the actual NVGenWeb election, gross negligence, and violations of USGenWeb
Project bylaws occurred, the result of which may have changed the outcome of
the election.

Specifically alleged anomalies were:
1. There no announcement of who would be eligible to vote.
2. There was not an official call for nominations.
3. Neither Bettie Wood or Pat Scott stated before hand that the
nominations would close at XX date.
4. NV CCs were not included in deciding who would count the ballots.

An astute reader will note that there no authority cited in the complaint
showing a requirement for any of the above actions. This is for a good and
valid reason. The requirement does not exist anywhere within the bylaws or
within the code of Parliamentary Procedures. The only place listing some of
these items is in the description of what provisions should be included in
organizational bylaws regarding elections. (Sturgis p. 150) Mr. Smoot has
taken these provisions out of context and misrepresented them as
requirements for an election to make it appear as though errors were made in
the election process. He is, once again, incorrect.

In fact, what the Code of Parliamentary Procedure does state is that
Parliamentary Law provides wide latitude in each step of the nominating and
electing process. (Sturgis p. 150) Described elsewhere in this response
were the steps that the State Coordinator followed in conducting the
election. The provisions for nominations or volunteers were by roll call.
The names of the candidates were posted and a request for any additional
candidates made, but the words "are there any other nominations" were not
used. The date of closing of the nominations was not specifically stated to
the mail list, but posted to the webpage and the URL of the page provided to
all members. The form and substance of the election was proper. All was
within the latitude given to the State Coordinator in the process under
Parliamentary Procedure.

The issue of not consulting the NVGenWeb members on the identity of the vote
counters is not even a consideration. The State Coordinator determined the
vote counters. It was her job to do so and she sought and picked unbiased
volunteers. There is neither requirement nor expectation that this with the
approval of the membership. Additionally, there was no objection raised by
any person, including Mr. Smoot, upon announcement of the vote counters
identity.

In order to support a claim that these alleged procedural anomalies were of
significance, evidence would have to be shown of:

1. The lack of announcement of the names of the voters prevented someone
eligible to vote from voting;
or,

2. That the lack of an official call for nominations or failure to provide
a specific date of the closing of nominations prevented someone from being
nominated for the position; and,

3. The failure of either of the above would have changed the outcome of
the election as held.

Even if all of the `procedural irregularities' cited were in fact required,
these would not void the election unless it could have changed the results.

There has been no evidence provided of any of these things by Mr. Smoot.
There has been no complaint from any eligible voter that they were unable to
vote. No person has come forward and complained denial of their opportunity
to volunteer their candidacy, or make a nomination of another. There have
been no legitimate complaints at all, only Mr. Smoot's opinion.

Most importantly, there has been no evidence that the outcome would be any
different had every procedural step identified by Mr. Smoot as `required'
been followed to the letter.

No evidence of gross negligence or violations of USGenWeb bylaws as claimed
in the initial complaint and follow up material have been presented for
consideration. Mr. Smoot has abandoned those issues by failing to provide
proof or evidence of the same.

CONCLUSION

These allegations consist of nothing but misrepresentation of fact,
misstatement of procedural requirements, and a reliance on minor
technicalities of no consequence to the outcome of the election process in
order to achieve a goal. It is nothing but a dilatory tactic used by an
individual to obstruct the will of the majority and in doing so, to impose
his will upon the decisions and actions of the State Coordinator in her
manner of handling the election.

The manner, execution, form, and substance of the election were within the
bylaws, rules, and parliamentary procedures. The outcome of the election
should stand, and this challenge dismissed as the dilatory and poorly
conceived action that it is.